All of the polling data from everyone but Rasmussen is showing an Obama win. All of the respected data analysts (Nate Silver, Andrew Tanenbaum, Intrade, etc) are showing at least a 75% chance of an Obama win, with some data showing it as an almost certainty.

So if Romney wins, what do we do? It would be such an unlikely thing that there would almost have to be fraud going on. Would we investigate? Would Congress refuse to certify the vote? Would the courts step in? There's no real Constitutional solution here; Congress could refuse to certify the electoral vote, but that would be unheard of and cause a huge loss of legitimacy for whatever candidate eventually won.

All of the polling data from everyone but Rasmussen is showing an Obama win. All of the respected data analysts (Nate Silver, Andrew Tanenbaum, Intrade, etc) are showing at least a 75% chance of an Obama win, with some data showing it as an almost certainty.

So if Romney wins, what do we do? It would be such an unlikely thing that there would almost have to be fraud going on. Would we investigate? Would Congress refuse to certify the vote? Would the courts step in? There's no real Constitutional solution here; Congress could refuse to certify the electoral vote, but that would be unheard of and cause a huge loss of legitimacy for whatever candidate eventually won.

If polls maintain their current status, the level of electoral fraud needed to pull out a Romney win would be phenomenally high. We're talking about "losing" a couple million votes in a half dozen states. Unlikely.

LazarusLong42:Lord Dimwit: Something that worries me: what if Romney "wins"?

All of the polling data from everyone but Rasmussen is showing an Obama win. All of the respected data analysts (Nate Silver, Andrew Tanenbaum, Intrade, etc) are showing at least a 75% chance of an Obama win, with some data showing it as an almost certainty.

So if Romney wins, what do we do? It would be such an unlikely thing that there would almost have to be fraud going on. Would we investigate? Would Congress refuse to certify the vote? Would the courts step in? There's no real Constitutional solution here; Congress could refuse to certify the electoral vote, but that would be unheard of and cause a huge loss of legitimacy for whatever candidate eventually won.

If polls maintain their current status, the level of electoral fraud needed to pull out a Romney win would be phenomenally high. We're talking about "losing" a couple million votes in a half dozen states. Unlikely.

Right. I'm asking what we'd do if that happens.

More likely than losing the votes, though, is voter suppression combined with missing votes. Close polling places in minority districts. Reject voters without "sufficient" ID (where "sufficient" is different for different people). Reject ballots due to extraneous marks. That sort of thing.

That was always one of my favorite puzzles as a bartender, but I couldn't remember how it went. Thanks for posting this.

It's showing two different sets and trying to add them together. What the three men paid, and where the money is.

Where the money is lines up fine, $25 to the hotel, $2 to the clerk and $3 to the dudes.

What was paid also lines up fine, $9 from each guy, a total of $27.

Thank you for this, my ears were starting to smoke.

This cartoon is one of the best illustrations I've seen about how the power of suggestion can be used to deceive people. The cartoon suggests that after all the transactions are completed, you should account for the $30 that was initially paid. And many people, even smart people, will go nuts trying to do so. But without this suggestion, I think most reasonably smart people would immediately see that after all transactions are completed, you should be accounting for the final $27 that was paid. Then, of course, it's easy: $25 was kept by the innkeeper, and $2 by the clerk.

moriarty23:That was always one of my favorite puzzles as a bartender, but I couldn't remember how it went. Thanks for posting this.

It's showing two different sets and trying to add them together. What the three men paid, and where the money is.

Where the money is lines up fine, $25 to the hotel, $2 to the clerk and $3 to the dudes.

What was paid also lines up fine, $9 from each guy, a total of $27.

I had an english teacher in high school give the class this puzzle and then asked the class to explain it. Any time anyone raised their hand and got close to explaining it correctly, he would interrupt us, fume a little bit, and then reiterate the puzzle.

The lesson that day was, "this is how to win an argument. you distract someone when they start to make a legitimate point."

Hollie Maea:This cartoon is one of the best illustrations I've seen about how the power of suggestion can be used to deceive people. The cartoon suggests that after all the transactions are completed, you should account for the $30 that was initially paid.

The version I originally heard was slightly better as the clerk actually brought the full $5 to the men but they would rather tip the guy $2 than worry about how to split $5 three ways. That solidified the idea that they paid $9 each plus $2 as a tip.

sigdiamond2000:2 grams: You know how I can tell no one read the article?

Just astart posting boys! To hell with the facts!

You guys crak me up.

FTFA:

Beginning this Monday, October 1, Rasmussen Reports will be basing its daily updates solely upon the results including leaners.

Care to elaborate?

I'll elaborate, even though I didn't make the original statement, since I've been following the numbers closely for some time.

Rasmussen might be trying to make numbers look better for Romney than they really are. We don't know. We DO know that he is making the numbers look better for Romney than they really are--he has a consistent and predictable Republican "house effect"--but we don't know if it is intentional or not. He might just honestly believe in the demonstrably bad assumptions that he makes that leads to this house effect.

All this said, moving to a "leaners" set definitely is not a ploy to help Romney. The "leaners" numbers dance around on each side of the "likely voters" numbers--today they would "help" Romney's numbers by a point, but a few days ago they would have "hurt" him by a couple of points. It is pretty common practice for pollsters to move from a Registered Voters model to a Likely Voters model and then to a Leaners model as the election gets closer.

Yes, Rasmussen has a GOP house effect. It's predictable, and therefore harmless. It's nice for people who want to find some straws to grasp. But this "change in methodology" (which isn't actually that, just a change in top line reporting) won't change this for good or ill. In fact, for those who actually care about predicting the election, such as Nate Silver, this will change nothing at all, since he's been using the "leaners" numbers from Rasmussen all along. He's also priced in the house effect, for what it's worth.

Hollie Maea:sigdiamond2000: 2 grams: You know how I can tell no one read the article?

Just astart posting boys! To hell with the facts!

You guys crak me up.

FTFA:

Beginning this Monday, October 1, Rasmussen Reports will be basing its daily updates solely upon the results including leaners.

Care to elaborate?

I'll elaborate, even though I didn't make the original statement, since I've been following the numbers closely for some time.

Rasmussen might be trying to make numbers look better for Romney than they really are. We don't know. We DO know that he is making the numbers look better for Romney than they really are--he has a consistent and predictable Republican "house effect"--but we don't know if it is intentional or not. He might just honestly believe in the demonstrably bad assumptions that he makes that leads to this house effect.

All this said, moving to a "leaners" set definitely is not a ploy to help Romney. The "leaners" numbers dance around on each side of the "likely voters" numbers--today they would "help" Romney's numbers by a point, but a few days ago they would have "hurt" him by a couple of points. It is pretty common practice for pollsters to move from a Registered Voters model to a Likely Voters model and then to a Leaners model as the election gets closer.

Yes, Rasmussen has a GOP house effect. It's predictable, and therefore harmless. It's nice for people who want to find some straws to grasp. But this "change in methodology" (which isn't actually that, just a change in top line reporting) won't change this for good or ill. In fact, for those who actually care about predicting the election, such as Nate Silver, this will change nothing at all, since he's been using the "leaners" numbers from Rasmussen all along. He's also priced in the house effect, for what it's worth.

I wasn't expecting someone to actually elaborate with a considered response. What a buzz kill.

EighthDay:Hobodeluxe: DeltaPunch: Fox News has also made a huge push to discredit polling numbers over the last week. The more they can convince their base that Romney should be winning now, the easier it will be to delegitimize Obama's second term after he wins.

either that or they know they are going to steal it and this is just preconditioning the masses to accept it.

I find this conspiracy hard to believe.

They would need to rig Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Virginia.

If Obama takes ANY of those (not even counting North Carolina, which is starting to trend back toward Obama), he wins.

They need to manage to rig Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, AND another swing state to pull it off. And even Pennsylvania's voter ID law isn't expect to flip PA.

Obama has too many paths to 270 for that level of vote rigging.

I so hope you are right. I have nightmares about another Florida 2000. Just a little election fraud and look what the long-term effect was. A decade of wars and a farked economy.

Don't even bother with the polling part, just make charts that tell them they're right.

There sure is!

well of course, it's all explained here. what? you don't think examiner.com is a creditable source?

It's some award-winning reality-creation. Or it should win some awards, at the very least. The guy behind Unskewed Polls posted a prediction over the summer as to what the 2020 election would look like. Cliffs Notes: The striking down of Obamacare leads to a resounding Romney/Portman win, they cut taxes and save the world, and in 2020, Ken Cuccinelli is well on his way to beating Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to maintain GOP control of the White House.

MrBallou:I so hope you are right. I have nightmares about another Florida 2000. Just a little election fraud and look what the long-term effect was. A decade of wars and a farked economy.

Well, it's certainly not in the bag for Obama yet. There's still a lot that could happen in a month, but with the way the polls are now, even adjusting for the Bradley Effect, which was minimal from 2008, Obama would have to lose ALL of the battleground states to lose (I'm counting CO, FL, VA, NC, NH, OH, and NH as battleground states).

But all he has to do is get Virginia (and NH) or Florida or Ohio and it's over.

If Obama didn't have so many different paths to 270, vote rigging would certainly be a major concern, but that level of concerted fraud I just don't think the Republicans are capable to pull off (I think that some of them would be willing to do it, however.)

Satanic_Hamster:NateGrey: Matthews had a guy on yesterday: "why would you pay someone for wrong/slewed poll results? these firms get employment based on their accuracy"

So basic hopefully even Teabaggers can understand. Maybe not.

Depends on what you want to sue the numbers for. If you're using them to decide policy and strategy, then you're right, it's worthless.

But if you're solely planning on using the "semi-legit" skewed poles for propaganda purposes or to blow smoke up your donors asses...

Such polls are also useful for combating voter apathy that could otherwise adversely effect more local elections.

The creators of such polls may also believe their alternative weighting methodology to be valid. This could be a consequence of confirmation bias; alternatively, a possibility exists -- however small -- that their methodology is valid and that the majority of polling companies are (by mistake, rather than due to conspiracy) using incorrect weighting methods.

Dimensio:Such polls are also useful for combating voter apathy that could otherwise adversely effect more local elections.

The creators of such polls may also believe their alternative weighting methodology to be valid. This could be a consequence of confirmation bias; alternatively, a possibility exists -- however small -- that their methodology is valid and that the majority of polling companies are (by mistake, rather than due to conspiracy) using incorrect weighting methods.

Regardless of your presentation of the issue, it is pretty farking stupid to change your weighting methodology mid-election only when you can no longer show your candidate winning or in a tie.

Rasmussen is finished after this election as a credible polling service. They were very weak on their 2008 election predictions and now they have just made it worse.

rufus-t-firefly:Our polls about doubly-weighted, to doubly insure the results are most accurate and not skewed, by both party identification and self-identified ideology. For instance, no matter how many Republicans answer our survey, they are weighted at 37.6 percent. If conservatives are over-represented among Republicans in the raw sample, they are still weighted at 68 percent of Republicans regardless. This system of double weighting should insure our survey produces very accurate results, not skewed either way for the Democrats or for the Republicans....The web-based survey included 2075 responses surveyed between September 10-15. The poll has a margin of error of three percent.

So, allow your sample to select itself, apply your own "weighting," and pull a margin of error out of your ass.

Five Tails of Fury:rufus-t-firefly: Our polls about doubly-weighted, to doubly insure the results are most accurate and not skewed, by both party identification and self-identified ideology. For instance, no matter how many Republicans answer our survey, they are weighted at 37.6 percent. If conservatives are over-represented among Republicans in the raw sample, they are still weighted at 68 percent of Republicans regardless. This system of double weighting should insure our survey produces very accurate results, not skewed either way for the Democrats or for the Republicans....The web-based survey included 2075 responses surveyed between September 10-15. The poll has a margin of error of three percent.

So, allow your sample to select itself, apply your own "weighting," and pull a margin of error out of your ass.

Seriously, this shiat is considered legit by unskewedpolls.com.

Even worse when you look into the polling company a little bit. The guy who runs it describes himself on Twitter as "Politically incorrect, member of the Vast right wing conspiracy, the TCOT community, working to make Obama a one term president."

Totally legit.

It's the same guy! That "polling company" exists only to provide the weighting for unskewedpolls.com. He is using his own "poll" to weight the others. He was using Rasmussen for a while until he realized that even Rasmussen was about to start showing Obama ahead.